Bureaucratic Accountability and Performance
Accountability is a social relationship in which an actor feels an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conducts to some significant other.
A key definition of accountability is “a social relationship in which an actor feels an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conducts to some significant other” (Bovens 2010). Accountability can also be defined differently based upon social, political, cultural, and institutional conditions. In order to explain and to justify their conduct, public organizations release information about their actions to the public. Thus, accountability is often seen as “transparency” of information. This study follows the concept of accountability as managing and meeting public and other expectations for performance and for bureaucratic, legal, professional, and political responsiveness (Kearns 1996; Romzek and Dubnick 1987).
- Behn RD (2001) Rethinking democratic accountability. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Cooper TL (2012) The responsible administrator: an approach to ethics for the administrative role. 6 ed. Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
- Dubnick MJ, Frederickson GH (2011) Public accountability: performance measurement, the extended state, and the search for trust. The Kettering Foundation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Gormley WT, Balla SJ (2010) Bureaucracy and democracy: accountability and performance, 3rd edn. CQ Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Self P (1973) Administrative theories and politics: an inquiry into the structure and processes of modern government. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar